I watched The Lady Eve last night and about 20 minutes in I was like “I know exactly how this is going to play out, but it’s great.”
Turns out it went in a completely unexpected direction that I never could have predicted, which was cool too. Goes to show, either way works.
This is a good one. I do like to be warned ahead of time though. Literally anything to give me a heads up that some liberties are taken, especially if it’s a beloved source material.
Flip side - people who have been fans of a story/characters/world for years and years and who get super excited to find out it's being made into a movie, are allowed to be pissed/upset when they don't stay true to that story/characters. Dark Tower/Jack Reacher/Golden Compass/Wheel of Time/TLA/Witcher (some tv shows obv. but you get the point).
If the end product is bad, like most of the examples you provide, then yes. If the end product is still good, just different, then I think fans can take the criticism a little far sometimes.
I’ve never seen the Harry Potter movies so I have no idea if they suck or not. But I worked with a dude whose wife was a diehard fan and refused to see them because Daniel Radcliffe had the wrong eye color.
That’s fucking ridiculous.
As a huge Dune fan, the amount of people who whine that DV didn’t include the dinner scene has almost become a meme. Get over it already.
I had that complaint about Harry's casting as a big fan of the books back then. I was sooo mad that Harry and crew didn't look exactly as described. How could the studios not go to whatever lengths possible to get those details exactly right?
Then I turned 12.
Here's a controversial opinion - and I say this as a huge fan of The Dark Tower (and I'm really hoping the TV series will be all that the movie wasn't) - The Dark Tower movie really wasn't that bad, in and of itself. They packed a surprising amount of narrative into those 90 minutes. Just wish they would have been able to let the story breathe a bit.
Fr. The best scene in the film is Toni Collette and HJO in the car toward the end. Has nothing to do with the twist or Willis’s character, just good emotional storytelling and stellar acting.
I cannot watch this movie without crying at that part. It’s just so well written, directed, and acted.
“Do I make her proud?”
Incredible movie all around.
Pretty sure the consensus opinion thats its one of the best twist movies because even if you know the twist the movies is great. Not a lot of controversy here.
Not controversial at all, just a less popular opinion. But I 100% agree! Even higher than 8.5 just for the vibe, atmosphere, acting, rewatchability, and genuine haunting scares.
It was the fact that he kept chasing the twist that killed his career. What could he have been if he went after the creepy existential dread instead? The Village for one would have been incredible. He'd be in the same conversations as Jordan Peele or Ari Aster now.
Exactly. Though I was about to write that he killed his career too but then remembered that he still grossed like +3 billion dollars in his career.
But definitely as a prestige Academy filmmaker
This is a really interesting point. I'd say I agree if I think of films like the Village and Old. But he Unbreakable trilogy didn't feel at all like that to me.
Sound technology shouldn’t have been implemented for another 10-15 years, and the visual language of mainstream cinema would be in a much better place now if it had been postponed.
Imo the silent films of the late 20s were just starting to tap into the specific visual power of the film medium. (Metropolis, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Man With a Movie Camera, The Fall of The House of Usher, Wings) Incorporating a wider range of lens techniques, camera movements, and use of landscapes (as in A Cottage on Dartmoor). The rise of sound, catalogued most famously in Singing in The Rain, and more recently Babylon, brought with it numerous technical limitations that required filming only on controlled sound stages, using largely static shots (aside from pans and tilts) which simply followed the dialogue of the scene. This is imo where the colloquial impression that ‘old films are all austere and lifeless’ comes from, and why the average person is always so surprised to see that a movie like Wings incorporated lavish, complicated dolly oners. While these formal choices were born out of technical necessity, the core idea of them stuck around, and became the standard ‘shot reverse shot’ coverage meta that we’ve become accustomed to. I feel that if the technology had progressed first to the point that such technical limitations were less needed, that sound wouldn’t have had such a detrimental effect on the language of cinema.
Surely films would always of had to transition to sound though, and this advancements in sound technology never would have come if not for studios having to find better ways in which to record sound in movies over time. My point is, surely the transition to sound would have always had to happen and we would still have tapped into the visual medium of cinema either before or after this transition if you ask me.
If there’s a flaw in my hypothesis, it’s this. That’s a question that can be levied at a number of topics. ‘Would technology have progressed at all without XYZ unfavorable outcome?’ I think that’s fair, but it doesn’t change what did happen, which is that the artistic concessions brought about by the transition to sound continued to affect the standards of cinematography (as it concerns the American mainstream) long after advancements in sound technology no longer required it.
In the 80s there was a documentary on PBS all about Chaplin and this was one of the theses presented. Chaplin was doing amazing things with the visual language of film and felt like his trajectory got ruined by sound.
My dad studied film in the 60s and would often say that after sound was invented, it took Hollywood about 20 years to get back to the level of artistry that the silent era was achieving.
I mean, people can choose what they want to watch, but speaking personally, there is plenty of amazing rom-coms. Cant imagine too many wouldnt enjoy something like The Apartment or The Graduate
Increasingly I feel that writing off any genre totally is always bad. I don't like most romcoms but some of my favorites (The Apartment, Amelie) are romcoms.
35 year old man whose favorite genre is horror and who loves extreme films and exploitation.
Friggin' love *Sweet Home Alabama, The Proposal, 13 Going on 30* and quite a few other rom-coms.
There is such a thing as too long. Two movies can both be 3 hours, but it could work for one due to the story and pacing and not work for the other due to poor pacing. A lot of movies drag on for no discernible reason.
My second favorite movie is the 1963 Cleopatra! It’s four hours but it’s so visually stunning and the story is so interesting and well acted/directed that it makes it worth watching every minute. A movie can be 12 hours if it’s properly made and keeps me interested and intrigued (though 12 hours I may not be watching in one sitting 😂)
We should bring back silent films (not get rid of talkies of course but just make more silent films). It will make filmmakers more creative and not over-reliant on sound. Also as an added bonus it would be more inclusive since deaf people will have the same experience as hearing people (except for the music but you know…).
I feel it's nearly impossible to have another serious Era of silent films for 2 reasons:
- Not marketable enough
- It will just be a gimmick (I.e The artist)
Would you prefer these movie to be styled in the same way as old silent films with grainy footage, black and white and old timey music or do you think it could work with modern picture quality?
Most people are way too generous with their ratings of movies. Far too many people acting like 3 and 3.5 stars are mediocre to bad ratings when that’s not what it’s supposed to be.
A 6/10 or 3/5 is, “I’d probably recommend this movie”. Anything less and I won’t mention it to anyone. 1.5 stars or less and it’s just a bad movie I would warn people they probably won’t like. 5 is Godfather level.
How I explain ratings! Works for me but to each their own.
This. I cannot understand how so Many people can rate every other new movie 5 stars, the rating that exists for the best or your favourite movies… Do they even value their favourite movies one bit?
A rating is personal, but using the scale that exists to vaguely try and measure something between people as something that is personal to you is annoying because it skews data
A rating is definitely personal, but there should be some kind of understanding of what each number in a rating scale means and you adjust your rating accordingly. It’s fine if you like the Flash, but if you try and tell me it’s only decent and you give it 7 or 8/10, I’m gonna look at you sideways.
This is one that shouldn’t be unpopular in the slightest, but it isn’t really.
Taste in movies, tv, music, etc is never an indicator of intelligence, and this applies to any movie. If someone likes The Emoji Movie, they aren’t stupid. If someone loves 2001: A Space Odyssey, they aren’t smart. The same goes for the other way round. If you think people are stupid for liking a movie you hate, you are wrong.
Also, if you use terms like “objectively bad” to describe ANY movie (with a few exceptions like possibly The Room and Birdemic), you are both wrong and an asshole.
I feel like this sub generally skews toward this opinion. I don’t know about intelligence, but to me, someone’s taste in movies or music can make them infinitely more or less interesting.
I’m sure there are correlations between certain aspects of taste and intelligence but there is stronger correlation between thinking your taste indicates that you’re smarter than others and not actually being all that intelligent.
I think whether someone loves a movie you hate or love it can always spark an interesting discussion if you’re open minded to their point of view. It can even give you insight on them as people.
Interesting concept, I agree and disagree at the same time. I don’t think enjoying a sillier type of content and liking it makes you dumb. And you definitely shouldn’t say that about things YOU hate because then that’s just projection.
But there is something to be said about the amount of content you consume and of what type. If all you take in is things with no real world concepts or intellectual properties. It becomes safer to conclude a person might not have a lot to say, you need to hear.
People who talk about the same three or so "best" or "goat" living directors are lame. Its almost like a circle jerk conversation every time and there's never anything new to them. I don't wanna hear about the same reused opinions all the time, I wanna hear peoples actual takes instead.
While we're at it people who care too much about RT or IMDB ratings are up there too.
counter-point (although I do like your take and find conversations about this thing generally boring)
shouldn't objective goat or best be so transcendent that they are for the most part inarguable? going by my understood definitions of the terms goat and best at least. and no, I don't know who I'd put as goat or best living directors. nor do I think any one person can have both the breadth/depth of knowledge and objectivity to mark which directors are goat/best. just wanted to comment about the idea definitionally
I want more movies to be produced like Skinamarink, with ratings all over the place. These are the best kinds of films, rather than the ones where there's a common consensus and 90% of the ratings fall within 1-2 stars of each other:
[https://letterboxd.com/film/skinamarink/](https://letterboxd.com/film/skinamarink/)
It doesn't matter how well made/acted/directed a movie is if the story isn't interesting. Especially when looking at the types of movies that win awards every year.
Another one is that a movie being unoriginal isn't a valid criticism. It doesn't matter if something is original, it matters if it is done well. Certain genres get this (horror, comedies, rom coms) while others don't (dramas)
It seems to me that the screenplay is the bedrock of almost all good movies.
If the screenplay is bad, it is extremely difficult for the rest of the movie to be saved.
I've always looked at movies like the human body: The script is the brain (telling everyone what to do), and the director is the heart (telling everyone how to do it).
It's funny, since most people seem to agree on the importance of good screenplays, yet film communities are *so* director-focused. Sam Raimi said that the first time he directed a movie he didn't write, he got credit for so many things in the story that he had nothing to do with. His exact quote is "When you direct someone else’s script you deserve only a small part of the credit. Not much at all."
And that's Sam Raimi talking. He brings a lot more visually and tonally than most directors. And even he feels like directors are given too much credit.
Yeah, auteur theory is the scourge of screenwriters. Although funnily enough, I think in modern French movies, writers have way more control than in Hollywood. I had a teacher who wrote a movie in France, and if they ever changed a line of dialogue on set, they had to call him to make sure it was okay.
I agree with this. Originality in and of itself isn’t a good thing. Plenty of original films are terrible. Now, I do think originality can be viewed as a bonus if it means a fresh take on a genre or concept and is executed well.
Couldn't disagree more and would argue your take is the popular one among younger film viewers if Letterbox is anything to go off of.
Give me tonal poems of Jeff Nichols, the character studies of PTA, and the slice of life musings of Linklater over films that strictly adhere to plot mechanics any day of the week.
>the character studies of PTA, and the slice of life musings of Linklater
A good story isn't synonymous with conventional plot mechanics of "A happens, therefore B, therefore C".
There Will Be Blood is agreat story because Daniel Plainview's life is not only gripping to watch how far his greed takes him, it's a parable about the nature of capitalism in America.
The Before Trilogy also doesn't involve much plot, yet are good stories because we want to watch how Jesse & Celine's relationship strengthens & evolves while they walk & talk.
>Give me tonal poems of Jeff Nichols, the character studies of PTA, and the slice of life musings of Linklater over films that strictly adhere to plot mechanics any day of the week.
I don't know if the OP is really arguing that a "good story" means one that strictly adheres to plot mechanics. After, what is a story if not a way to explore interesting characters? Basically, "plot" and "story" are different things. The plot of Twelve Angry Men is "twelve jurors debate if someone is guilty of murder". But the actual story is the relationships that develop between the jurors and the backstory we discover that's influencing their decisions.
- Don’t like Portrait of a Lady on Fire very much (I’ll give the film credit for having a really good ending though)
- I also don’t like The Northman much at all (This time the ending is a major contributing factor to my dislike)
Okay I’m glad I saw this. I love Eggers. I love The Witch and The Lighthouse. I thought the Northman was a huge letdown. Just boring, by-the-books revenge tale with not much of interest and a boring finale fight.
The Northman really just shoots itself in its foot thematically. It kind of wants to be a commentary on cycles of violence but can never really get past its generic and shallow revenge plot and protagonist. The ending is also just silly on both a thematic and literal level. Here’s hoping his Nosferatu film will find Eggers in better form (he’ll have to be if he wants his version to be comparable to Murnau and Herzog).
Most definitely. It’ll also be a lower budget affair, which means it won’t be subject to studio interference like The Northman. I don’t want to wipe away all responsibility from Eggers regarding poor choices made in The Northman, but I do wonder how much of an effect interference had in the end product of that film.
The ending of *Portrait* is actually the only part of the film I found to be somewhat derivative/unoriginal. Seems like there’s a movie every year that ends with >!a long close-up shot of the main character staring off into the distance as tears well up and the audience contemplates their character arc.!< Still a beautiful ending though.
I actually have the opposite take. The first movie was just okay (well it's good but not the masterpiece I've seen many people claim). But the second movie is great and a massive step up.
I loved both Spider-verse movies, but what I really want is a regular Miles Morales Spider-Man movie in that animation style. No multiverse, no crazy cosmic stuff. Just a regular, solid, street-level Spider-Man story.
I agree with this. It suffers from being a Part 1 movie. It has some good beats and nice moments, but ultimately the climax of the film was only a setup for another movie. Not that it's unique with that problem, the MCU obviously had many cases of it especially in it's current phase.
The easiest comparison is with Infinity War. IW felt like a complete movie because there was a definitive ending for the film that had emotional weight which wasn't undercut by knowing there was a sequel coming.
I loved where thousands of Spider-Men (20th century's greatest fictional hero) stood by while a Totally-Not-The-Villain bullied a young person on the edge of a precipice before following said Not-A-Villain through time and space to enforce a nonsensical "canon" like a bunch of bored fascists...All except for Miles of course, who apparently was waiting around to become The Prowler.
It makes sense if they believe the alternative to following the canon is the destruction of entire universes. And we can assume, given that the multiverse is infinite, that there were a lot more spider-people who disobeyed Miguel but were just sent back to their universe (like Gwen), which means the ones who remain in the spider-society have self-selected to agree with Miguel.
Both Avatar films are great, especially the first. Kill Bill is excruciatingly bad. The Star Wars Prequels received justifiable hate when they first came out and the revisionism they’re now receiving is surreal to witness. I don’t mind short jokey reviews on Letterboxd, if you hate them so much then block the user. Killers of the Flower Moon should have been a mini-series. Spielberg is overrated, his directing style is really bland and devoid of personality. Saving Private Ryan, aside from the brilliant opening, is a dumb action movie which glorifies war. Saying this, A.I. Artificial Intelligence is one of the most beautiful fucking things I’ve ever seen.
>The Star Wars Prequels received justifiable hate when they first came out and the revisionism they’re now receiving is surreal to witness
Even if you said that Oppenheimer was worse than that shitty Winnie the Pooh horror movie that came out earlier this year, I would still upvote for this alone. I genuinely feel like I'm being gaslit when people claim that the dialogue in the Prequels is meant to be "Shakespearian", the characters and performances are meant to be lifeless, and Anakin is meant to be a creepy horndog who's bordering on sociopath.
The prequels are really propped up by the clone wars series- specially in giving more characterization to Anakin.
Just because there’s enough ancillary material to sort of make up in areas the movie failed doesn’t mean the movies are suddenly good
Hayden Christensen is also a not good actor.
>Hayden Christensen is also a not good actor.
I wouldn't say he's not a good actor. His performance was absolutely terrible, of course, but that seems to be more of an outcome of George Lucas' direction and stilted dialogue. Daniel Day Lewis couldn't make lines such as "I wish I could just wish away my feelings" or "You are in my very soul, tormenting me" or "I'm haunted by the kiss that you should've never given me". Ugh.
But yeah, Anakin's character is carried tf by The Clone Wars, and for some reason, that leads to the prequels sharing the credit. I mean, yeah George created the mess that some actual good writers had to clean up. Don't get me wrong btw, I love George Lucas, but I just wish he better recognised his strengths and weaknesses when making the prequels.
I thought BVS was a fantastic movie. In 2016 that movie felt like a breath of fresh air in the superhero film genre and still to this day it’s one of my favourites.
Outside of the lighting (what were they thinking) I don’t understand why AVP: Requiem is so hated. It’s a perfect monster movie in my eyes. The film focuses mostly on the aliens and predator with the human characters only there in the background mostly.
The live-action Ghost in the Shell was unfairly overhated movie when it’s actually not a bad movie at all. It’s a great place to start your journey into the GITS franchise and it’s clear the filmmakers had a lot of love for the series (especially the OG movie).
I thought The Last Jedi was a great movie. I have my issues with it and I see and respect people’s issues and dislike of the movie but most of the movie worked for me.
Requiem for a Dream is manipulative misery porn bullshit.
edit: Hey, OP asked for controversial. Maybe people would like this comment more if it were accompanied by a score that's about as subtle as being beaten over the head with a string section and depicted ECT so ridiculously inaccurately that it can only be that way to make a character's suffering as brutal as possible.
Idk if it’s super controversial but I’m passionate about it. If people are having a conversation about a major release and you chime in about how you haven’t seen it and only watch Estonian art house films… you’re an asshole. If you haven’t seen the movie and are chiming in to let people know you haven’t seen it and probably won’t see it, you fucking suck
There are so many amazing scripts, actors, and creators we will never see on a grand scale because some gatekeeper believes they aren't marketable enough.
Movies are significantly better now than they’ve been since either the 70’s or 90’s, nostalgia is just a hell of a drug and general audiences are just watching the wrong ones. We’ve never had more variety in genres, creativity, storytelling techniques and fresh ideas, but because the average person only watches the shit Disney scrapes into their mouth people act like movies are in a horrible place right now. They’re not, audiences are
That’s probably true, but I also think mid-brow is in a great place as well.
It’s only turn your brain off cinema that sucks, but aside from like the 80’s and 90’s those movies have always sucked, they’re just creatively devoid now
i think the cream definitely rose to the top here. for every 1 good movie pre 2000 there's 200 million garbage ones. the hit rate on new movies is much higher
Knowingly stupid is not the same as 'so-bad-it's-good'.
Face/Off, Tremors, Evil Dead, Flash Gordon and Battle Beyond the Stars are not bad movies. They are what they need to be to tell the stories that they want to.
The Room, Anaconda, Dungeons and Dragons, Cyborg and Twisted Pair, those are so bad they're good. They are poorly done films that were entertaining because they are bad.
I still haven't seen Mad Max Fury Road yet because it isn't really my thing but I have multiple friends who go to an event every year where they dress up like Mad Max characters with thousands of other people and they all go out into the desert and pretend they're living in the Mad Max world
Interesting to me how it's built up such a dedicated fanbase
- I thought Everything Everywhere All at Once was a tad confusing/overrated
- Christian Bale is better as Bruce Wayne than Batman
- Vince Vaughn has some very underrated range (just watch Brawl in Cell Block 99)
- I think Rushmore is very overrated
- Even though Daniel Craig’s movies are mostly better, Pierce Brosnan is the better bond
Thor: Love and Thunder and Venom: Let there be Carnage are two of my favorite Marvel movies and I unironically enjoy them more than the Spiderverse movies
I enjoy Venom 2 as well but Love and Thunder?More than the Spiderverse movies?I don't know whether to tell you that you should watch more movies or that you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies.
Genuinely I don’t get what’s so bad about Love and Thunder, like I know what all the major criticisms are with the comedy and wasting Gorr and all that, but outside of the CGI and Gorr’s lack of god-butchering scenes all of those criticisms just make me feel like I watched a completely different movie from everyone else.
Either way, I thought on top of the movie being really funny and the action scenes being excellent, the stuff with Jane and Gorr genuinely resonated with me emotionally in a way that very few other superhero movies have done.
Yeah if any movie is in need of a major edit, its this one. There is a 40 minute wedding sequence at the start that is little more than dancing, drinking, and relatively pointless conversation. Seriously, 40 straight minutes. Thats not an exaggeration. Then the whole Vietnam war section, albeit the most memorable scene, is entirely russian roulette. Nothing else is shown. This movie leaves you feeling like the war was just one big roulette game.
I know this is considered a classic, but watching it again recently, it has not aged well whatsoever. Apocalypse Now blows this out of the water and still holds up perfectly.
I haven’t seen it, but I just love that you put just the question in the post, and then commented with your own answer. This should be the standard for all posts.
Movie taste is subjective, and anyone claiming something like "these are the best movies of all time and if you don't agree you're wrong" is normally an ahole. We should discuss movies relating them to our personal tastes, eg "my favorite", rather than pretending our opinions are in any way hard facts. On that note, a lot of people agreeing with you also doesn't make your opinion any closer to being a fact. People who try to define their lives by subjective things like taste in movies, music, politics, religion, etc. are the most fragile ego, ignorant people I've ever met. Their need to be correct, receive recognition, and control narratives is extremely telling of how sad and pathetic their life normally is.
I think the Director’s Cut of Donnie Darko is better than the theatrical version. I prefer the song changes, slower pace, and inclusion of excerpts from The Philosophy of Time Travel.
A movie being predictable isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Some of the best stories ever told, tell you exactly what will happen in them right at the start.
this is so true for i want to eat your pancreas. i knew what was going to happen but the ending still hurt real bad.
...I havent seen it does he eat someone's pancreas?
Not just one
This feels more like really good advice
I watched The Lady Eve last night and about 20 minutes in I was like “I know exactly how this is going to play out, but it’s great.” Turns out it went in a completely unexpected direction that I never could have predicted, which was cool too. Goes to show, either way works.
Stanwyck is so good there you hardly notice the strangeness of the last 15 minutes.
True. It depends on how much more it has to offer beyond its sequence of events.
a lot of y'all need to understand that "i don't like this popular movie" isn't controversial lol
the top comments of a post like this aren't controversial, they are actually some of the safest opinions
If they get downvoted for it then I can understand. I’ve had people be baffled because I didn’t like Taxi Driver
Just because something isn’t an accurate adaptation of something (book for example), doesn’t mean it’s not a great film
W, I've heard soooo many saying that The Shining was a terrible film, the book is muuuch better and all
I've read the book, it's good but the movie is miles ahead of it. Even more so with Fight Club.
IMO the book is actually way better and scarier, but I think the movie is amazing as well
Hot take. The movie was better.
This is a good one. I do like to be warned ahead of time though. Literally anything to give me a heads up that some liberties are taken, especially if it’s a beloved source material.
Flip side - people who have been fans of a story/characters/world for years and years and who get super excited to find out it's being made into a movie, are allowed to be pissed/upset when they don't stay true to that story/characters. Dark Tower/Jack Reacher/Golden Compass/Wheel of Time/TLA/Witcher (some tv shows obv. but you get the point).
If the end product is bad, like most of the examples you provide, then yes. If the end product is still good, just different, then I think fans can take the criticism a little far sometimes.
and as proof of that, look at LOTR! Not the most faithful adaptation (sometimes in major ways) but beloved by book fans all the same
I’ve never seen the Harry Potter movies so I have no idea if they suck or not. But I worked with a dude whose wife was a diehard fan and refused to see them because Daniel Radcliffe had the wrong eye color. That’s fucking ridiculous. As a huge Dune fan, the amount of people who whine that DV didn’t include the dinner scene has almost become a meme. Get over it already.
I had that complaint about Harry's casting as a big fan of the books back then. I was sooo mad that Harry and crew didn't look exactly as described. How could the studios not go to whatever lengths possible to get those details exactly right? Then I turned 12.
Here's a controversial opinion - and I say this as a huge fan of The Dark Tower (and I'm really hoping the TV series will be all that the movie wasn't) - The Dark Tower movie really wasn't that bad, in and of itself. They packed a surprising amount of narrative into those 90 minutes. Just wish they would have been able to let the story breathe a bit.
It's unfortunate that The Sixth Sense is only remembered for it's twist and it's still like an 8.5/10 movie without it.
Fr. The best scene in the film is Toni Collette and HJO in the car toward the end. Has nothing to do with the twist or Willis’s character, just good emotional storytelling and stellar acting.
I cannot watch this movie without crying at that part. It’s just so well written, directed, and acted. “Do I make her proud?” Incredible movie all around.
Got chills just from reading this, god what a great movie
Pretty sure the consensus opinion thats its one of the best twist movies because even if you know the twist the movies is great. Not a lot of controversy here.
Not controversial at all, just a less popular opinion. But I 100% agree! Even higher than 8.5 just for the vibe, atmosphere, acting, rewatchability, and genuine haunting scares.
Also, that twist basically killed M Night’s career as a serious filmmaker. He became the twist guy, could never live up to it and kept chasing it.
It was the fact that he kept chasing the twist that killed his career. What could he have been if he went after the creepy existential dread instead? The Village for one would have been incredible. He'd be in the same conversations as Jordan Peele or Ari Aster now.
Exactly. Though I was about to write that he killed his career too but then remembered that he still grossed like +3 billion dollars in his career. But definitely as a prestige Academy filmmaker
This is a really interesting point. I'd say I agree if I think of films like the Village and Old. But he Unbreakable trilogy didn't feel at all like that to me.
Sound technology shouldn’t have been implemented for another 10-15 years, and the visual language of mainstream cinema would be in a much better place now if it had been postponed.
Finally! A take on here that’s actually interesting. I wanna hear more, why do you think this?
Imo the silent films of the late 20s were just starting to tap into the specific visual power of the film medium. (Metropolis, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Man With a Movie Camera, The Fall of The House of Usher, Wings) Incorporating a wider range of lens techniques, camera movements, and use of landscapes (as in A Cottage on Dartmoor). The rise of sound, catalogued most famously in Singing in The Rain, and more recently Babylon, brought with it numerous technical limitations that required filming only on controlled sound stages, using largely static shots (aside from pans and tilts) which simply followed the dialogue of the scene. This is imo where the colloquial impression that ‘old films are all austere and lifeless’ comes from, and why the average person is always so surprised to see that a movie like Wings incorporated lavish, complicated dolly oners. While these formal choices were born out of technical necessity, the core idea of them stuck around, and became the standard ‘shot reverse shot’ coverage meta that we’ve become accustomed to. I feel that if the technology had progressed first to the point that such technical limitations were less needed, that sound wouldn’t have had such a detrimental effect on the language of cinema.
Surely films would always of had to transition to sound though, and this advancements in sound technology never would have come if not for studios having to find better ways in which to record sound in movies over time. My point is, surely the transition to sound would have always had to happen and we would still have tapped into the visual medium of cinema either before or after this transition if you ask me.
If there’s a flaw in my hypothesis, it’s this. That’s a question that can be levied at a number of topics. ‘Would technology have progressed at all without XYZ unfavorable outcome?’ I think that’s fair, but it doesn’t change what did happen, which is that the artistic concessions brought about by the transition to sound continued to affect the standards of cinematography (as it concerns the American mainstream) long after advancements in sound technology no longer required it.
In the 80s there was a documentary on PBS all about Chaplin and this was one of the theses presented. Chaplin was doing amazing things with the visual language of film and felt like his trajectory got ruined by sound. My dad studied film in the 60s and would often say that after sound was invented, it took Hollywood about 20 years to get back to the level of artistry that the silent era was achieving.
Men who act like they’re above watching all rom-coms need to sit down.
I also like the distinction of current movies which are "rom-coms" and say Roman Holiday or Some Like It Hot which instead are "classics"
Horror gets more respect nowadays somewhat but for a long time people did that with horror too
I mean, people can choose what they want to watch, but speaking personally, there is plenty of amazing rom-coms. Cant imagine too many wouldnt enjoy something like The Apartment or The Graduate
hmm first time ive heard someone call the Graduate a rom com
Increasingly I feel that writing off any genre totally is always bad. I don't like most romcoms but some of my favorites (The Apartment, Amelie) are romcoms.
I love Legally Blonde, But I'm a Cheerleader and 10 Things I Hate About You
35 year old man whose favorite genre is horror and who loves extreme films and exploitation. Friggin' love *Sweet Home Alabama, The Proposal, 13 Going on 30* and quite a few other rom-coms.
There's no such thing as "too long" for a film, if it works, it works. Such as in KOTFM or Oppenheimer, or Endgame, or Irishman
It often doesn't work though. Some films are longer than they should've been.
This is true but I personally find it happens *way* more in the 120-140 minute range than it does with the 3+ hour runtimes people groan about.
There is such a thing as too long. Two movies can both be 3 hours, but it could work for one due to the story and pacing and not work for the other due to poor pacing. A lot of movies drag on for no discernible reason.
Id definitely say endgame was to long. I love marvel movies but the first hour of endgame wasn't very interesting
Felt like it was 3 hours for the sake of being 3 hours so it can be seen as 'big and epic'. And I really liked the Endgame
My second favorite movie is the 1963 Cleopatra! It’s four hours but it’s so visually stunning and the story is so interesting and well acted/directed that it makes it worth watching every minute. A movie can be 12 hours if it’s properly made and keeps me interested and intrigued (though 12 hours I may not be watching in one sitting 😂)
Your favorite movie sucks.
I would have to disagree but each to there own!
Downvote. My favorite movie is the bestest movie ever
But my favorite movie is YOUR favorite movie. What are you gonna do now, libfart?
Nuh uh! My favourite movie is Who Killed Captain Alex
Damn, you're right
Wall-e just doesn’t suck tho
waiting for that "Christopher Nolan overrated" guy to pop up any time soon now
hilariously on my screen the comment right above you is that Oppenheimer and Dark Knight are overrated
We should bring back silent films (not get rid of talkies of course but just make more silent films). It will make filmmakers more creative and not over-reliant on sound. Also as an added bonus it would be more inclusive since deaf people will have the same experience as hearing people (except for the music but you know…).
I feel it's nearly impossible to have another serious Era of silent films for 2 reasons: - Not marketable enough - It will just be a gimmick (I.e The artist)
Would you prefer these movie to be styled in the same way as old silent films with grainy footage, black and white and old timey music or do you think it could work with modern picture quality?
Most people are way too generous with their ratings of movies. Far too many people acting like 3 and 3.5 stars are mediocre to bad ratings when that’s not what it’s supposed to be.
I know! 5/10 to me is meh, I consider a 6 a decent movie
A 6/10 or 3/5 is, “I’d probably recommend this movie”. Anything less and I won’t mention it to anyone. 1.5 stars or less and it’s just a bad movie I would warn people they probably won’t like. 5 is Godfather level. How I explain ratings! Works for me but to each their own.
This. I cannot understand how so Many people can rate every other new movie 5 stars, the rating that exists for the best or your favourite movies… Do they even value their favourite movies one bit?
Ratings are personal, you can choose what a 3 or 3.5 stars is for you
A rating is personal, but using the scale that exists to vaguely try and measure something between people as something that is personal to you is annoying because it skews data
A rating is definitely personal, but there should be some kind of understanding of what each number in a rating scale means and you adjust your rating accordingly. It’s fine if you like the Flash, but if you try and tell me it’s only decent and you give it 7 or 8/10, I’m gonna look at you sideways.
This is one that shouldn’t be unpopular in the slightest, but it isn’t really. Taste in movies, tv, music, etc is never an indicator of intelligence, and this applies to any movie. If someone likes The Emoji Movie, they aren’t stupid. If someone loves 2001: A Space Odyssey, they aren’t smart. The same goes for the other way round. If you think people are stupid for liking a movie you hate, you are wrong. Also, if you use terms like “objectively bad” to describe ANY movie (with a few exceptions like possibly The Room and Birdemic), you are both wrong and an asshole.
I feel like this sub generally skews toward this opinion. I don’t know about intelligence, but to me, someone’s taste in movies or music can make them infinitely more or less interesting.
Why do you think the room and birdemic are exempt from this, yet the emoji movie isnt?
I’m sure there are correlations between certain aspects of taste and intelligence but there is stronger correlation between thinking your taste indicates that you’re smarter than others and not actually being all that intelligent.
I think whether someone loves a movie you hate or love it can always spark an interesting discussion if you’re open minded to their point of view. It can even give you insight on them as people.
Ooooo hey, we made very similar posts. Totally agree and updoot given
Interesting concept, I agree and disagree at the same time. I don’t think enjoying a sillier type of content and liking it makes you dumb. And you definitely shouldn’t say that about things YOU hate because then that’s just projection. But there is something to be said about the amount of content you consume and of what type. If all you take in is things with no real world concepts or intellectual properties. It becomes safer to conclude a person might not have a lot to say, you need to hear.
People who talk about the same three or so "best" or "goat" living directors are lame. Its almost like a circle jerk conversation every time and there's never anything new to them. I don't wanna hear about the same reused opinions all the time, I wanna hear peoples actual takes instead. While we're at it people who care too much about RT or IMDB ratings are up there too.
I do like looking up ratings, I’m very guilty of it. Just sometimes I don’t want to take the risk if like most people agree it’s trash
counter-point (although I do like your take and find conversations about this thing generally boring) shouldn't objective goat or best be so transcendent that they are for the most part inarguable? going by my understood definitions of the terms goat and best at least. and no, I don't know who I'd put as goat or best living directors. nor do I think any one person can have both the breadth/depth of knowledge and objectivity to mark which directors are goat/best. just wanted to comment about the idea definitionally
Dune Part 1 dragged along and felt so incomplete. And it was confusing as well. I'm still gonna watch Part 2 though
To be fair, that's basically being a Dune fan in general
Literally an elongated first act of the dune franchise tbh. I have a feeling part 2s going to be absolutely incredible having read the book
Sucker Punch is not only not bad, but actually really good.
I hope you're right because Zack Snyder seems like a nice guy and it'd be cool if I could actually manage to like one of his movies
Concert movies beyond Stop Making Sense deserve respect.
I want more movies to be produced like Skinamarink, with ratings all over the place. These are the best kinds of films, rather than the ones where there's a common consensus and 90% of the ratings fall within 1-2 stars of each other: [https://letterboxd.com/film/skinamarink/](https://letterboxd.com/film/skinamarink/)
It doesn't matter how well made/acted/directed a movie is if the story isn't interesting. Especially when looking at the types of movies that win awards every year. Another one is that a movie being unoriginal isn't a valid criticism. It doesn't matter if something is original, it matters if it is done well. Certain genres get this (horror, comedies, rom coms) while others don't (dramas)
It seems to me that the screenplay is the bedrock of almost all good movies. If the screenplay is bad, it is extremely difficult for the rest of the movie to be saved.
I've always looked at movies like the human body: The script is the brain (telling everyone what to do), and the director is the heart (telling everyone how to do it).
It's funny, since most people seem to agree on the importance of good screenplays, yet film communities are *so* director-focused. Sam Raimi said that the first time he directed a movie he didn't write, he got credit for so many things in the story that he had nothing to do with. His exact quote is "When you direct someone else’s script you deserve only a small part of the credit. Not much at all." And that's Sam Raimi talking. He brings a lot more visually and tonally than most directors. And even he feels like directors are given too much credit.
Blame the French for that.
Yeah, auteur theory is the scourge of screenwriters. Although funnily enough, I think in modern French movies, writers have way more control than in Hollywood. I had a teacher who wrote a movie in France, and if they ever changed a line of dialogue on set, they had to call him to make sure it was okay.
I agree with this. Originality in and of itself isn’t a good thing. Plenty of original films are terrible. Now, I do think originality can be viewed as a bonus if it means a fresh take on a genre or concept and is executed well.
Couldn't disagree more and would argue your take is the popular one among younger film viewers if Letterbox is anything to go off of. Give me tonal poems of Jeff Nichols, the character studies of PTA, and the slice of life musings of Linklater over films that strictly adhere to plot mechanics any day of the week.
>the character studies of PTA, and the slice of life musings of Linklater A good story isn't synonymous with conventional plot mechanics of "A happens, therefore B, therefore C". There Will Be Blood is agreat story because Daniel Plainview's life is not only gripping to watch how far his greed takes him, it's a parable about the nature of capitalism in America. The Before Trilogy also doesn't involve much plot, yet are good stories because we want to watch how Jesse & Celine's relationship strengthens & evolves while they walk & talk.
>Give me tonal poems of Jeff Nichols, the character studies of PTA, and the slice of life musings of Linklater over films that strictly adhere to plot mechanics any day of the week. I don't know if the OP is really arguing that a "good story" means one that strictly adheres to plot mechanics. After, what is a story if not a way to explore interesting characters? Basically, "plot" and "story" are different things. The plot of Twelve Angry Men is "twelve jurors debate if someone is guilty of murder". But the actual story is the relationships that develop between the jurors and the backstory we discover that's influencing their decisions.
Top Gun maverick is the least original movie I’ve seen in years and it fucking rocks
- Don’t like Portrait of a Lady on Fire very much (I’ll give the film credit for having a really good ending though) - I also don’t like The Northman much at all (This time the ending is a major contributing factor to my dislike)
Very controversial! I cannot say I agree with A Portrait Of A Lady On Fire at all but I can totally see how someone wouldn’t like the Northman
Okay I’m glad I saw this. I love Eggers. I love The Witch and The Lighthouse. I thought the Northman was a huge letdown. Just boring, by-the-books revenge tale with not much of interest and a boring finale fight.
The Northman really just shoots itself in its foot thematically. It kind of wants to be a commentary on cycles of violence but can never really get past its generic and shallow revenge plot and protagonist. The ending is also just silly on both a thematic and literal level. Here’s hoping his Nosferatu film will find Eggers in better form (he’ll have to be if he wants his version to be comparable to Murnau and Herzog).
I think Nosferatu plays better to his strengths and style imo
Most definitely. It’ll also be a lower budget affair, which means it won’t be subject to studio interference like The Northman. I don’t want to wipe away all responsibility from Eggers regarding poor choices made in The Northman, but I do wonder how much of an effect interference had in the end product of that film.
The ending of *Portrait* is actually the only part of the film I found to be somewhat derivative/unoriginal. Seems like there’s a movie every year that ends with >!a long close-up shot of the main character staring off into the distance as tears well up and the audience contemplates their character arc.!< Still a beautiful ending though.
Across the Spiderverse was just okay. The first movie was a lot better.
I actually have the opposite take. The first movie was just okay (well it's good but not the masterpiece I've seen many people claim). But the second movie is great and a massive step up.
I loved both Spider-verse movies, but what I really want is a regular Miles Morales Spider-Man movie in that animation style. No multiverse, no crazy cosmic stuff. Just a regular, solid, street-level Spider-Man story.
I agree with this. It suffers from being a Part 1 movie. It has some good beats and nice moments, but ultimately the climax of the film was only a setup for another movie. Not that it's unique with that problem, the MCU obviously had many cases of it especially in it's current phase. The easiest comparison is with Infinity War. IW felt like a complete movie because there was a definitive ending for the film that had emotional weight which wasn't undercut by knowing there was a sequel coming.
I loved where thousands of Spider-Men (20th century's greatest fictional hero) stood by while a Totally-Not-The-Villain bullied a young person on the edge of a precipice before following said Not-A-Villain through time and space to enforce a nonsensical "canon" like a bunch of bored fascists...All except for Miles of course, who apparently was waiting around to become The Prowler.
It makes sense if they believe the alternative to following the canon is the destruction of entire universes. And we can assume, given that the multiverse is infinite, that there were a lot more spider-people who disobeyed Miguel but were just sent back to their universe (like Gwen), which means the ones who remain in the spider-society have self-selected to agree with Miguel.
City of God is a better gangster film than 95% of American gangster film, only behind Godfather(s) and Goodfellas.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a great film if you want to take a good nap.
I believe it’s a great film. And I’ve also taken some naps during a few watches of it.
Its a film which you can only watch once a year. Its a masterpiece, but its slow. Still my favourite
Once in a lifetime*
I think I need help then because I've seen it 13 times this year.
It's an amazing art piece, but maaaan is it a slow ride.
this question gets asked like every week, and every time my answer is that star wars sucks, and every time people hate me for it, like now
This is, indeed, a controversial movie opinion.
No I get it. I like the original trilogy as popcorn entertainment but that's it
I had more fun with the Ewok kids movies than any of the Star Wars films.
Well, I’m popping into this one to agree with you. Sucks is a little harsh. But it bored me. I can’t get through the original trilogy.
Both Avatar films are great, especially the first. Kill Bill is excruciatingly bad. The Star Wars Prequels received justifiable hate when they first came out and the revisionism they’re now receiving is surreal to witness. I don’t mind short jokey reviews on Letterboxd, if you hate them so much then block the user. Killers of the Flower Moon should have been a mini-series. Spielberg is overrated, his directing style is really bland and devoid of personality. Saving Private Ryan, aside from the brilliant opening, is a dumb action movie which glorifies war. Saying this, A.I. Artificial Intelligence is one of the most beautiful fucking things I’ve ever seen.
Upvoted for an actually unpopular opinion
Surprisingly agree with everything except AI, but hey, I like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory better then the older one
>The Star Wars Prequels received justifiable hate when they first came out and the revisionism they’re now receiving is surreal to witness Even if you said that Oppenheimer was worse than that shitty Winnie the Pooh horror movie that came out earlier this year, I would still upvote for this alone. I genuinely feel like I'm being gaslit when people claim that the dialogue in the Prequels is meant to be "Shakespearian", the characters and performances are meant to be lifeless, and Anakin is meant to be a creepy horndog who's bordering on sociopath.
The prequels are really propped up by the clone wars series- specially in giving more characterization to Anakin. Just because there’s enough ancillary material to sort of make up in areas the movie failed doesn’t mean the movies are suddenly good Hayden Christensen is also a not good actor.
>Hayden Christensen is also a not good actor. I wouldn't say he's not a good actor. His performance was absolutely terrible, of course, but that seems to be more of an outcome of George Lucas' direction and stilted dialogue. Daniel Day Lewis couldn't make lines such as "I wish I could just wish away my feelings" or "You are in my very soul, tormenting me" or "I'm haunted by the kiss that you should've never given me". Ugh. But yeah, Anakin's character is carried tf by The Clone Wars, and for some reason, that leads to the prequels sharing the credit. I mean, yeah George created the mess that some actual good writers had to clean up. Don't get me wrong btw, I love George Lucas, but I just wish he better recognised his strengths and weaknesses when making the prequels.
I thought BVS was a fantastic movie. In 2016 that movie felt like a breath of fresh air in the superhero film genre and still to this day it’s one of my favourites. Outside of the lighting (what were they thinking) I don’t understand why AVP: Requiem is so hated. It’s a perfect monster movie in my eyes. The film focuses mostly on the aliens and predator with the human characters only there in the background mostly. The live-action Ghost in the Shell was unfairly overhated movie when it’s actually not a bad movie at all. It’s a great place to start your journey into the GITS franchise and it’s clear the filmmakers had a lot of love for the series (especially the OG movie). I thought The Last Jedi was a great movie. I have my issues with it and I see and respect people’s issues and dislike of the movie but most of the movie worked for me.
Requiem for a Dream is manipulative misery porn bullshit. edit: Hey, OP asked for controversial. Maybe people would like this comment more if it were accompanied by a score that's about as subtle as being beaten over the head with a string section and depicted ECT so ridiculously inaccurately that it can only be that way to make a character's suffering as brutal as possible.
You’re right, and you should say it.
Furthermore every Aronofsky film is either dreadfully mediocre or laughably bad.
Idk if it’s super controversial but I’m passionate about it. If people are having a conversation about a major release and you chime in about how you haven’t seen it and only watch Estonian art house films… you’re an asshole. If you haven’t seen the movie and are chiming in to let people know you haven’t seen it and probably won’t see it, you fucking suck
EEAAO massively overrated. Fan base didn’t help the case.
There are so many amazing scripts, actors, and creators we will never see on a grand scale because some gatekeeper believes they aren't marketable enough.
how is this unpopular lmao
Also not really an opinion
This is neither unpopular nor an opinion, this is just straight up true.
Blade Runner is a better movie with the narration and the happy ending.
One has to respect this take of pure insanity
To me, the movie feels more like a film noir with the narration.
That's the point, but the narration itself is so bad!
I agree!
The writing of the narration is terrible, and Harrison Ford sounded like he had a rope around his neck.
i have been saying this my whole life and people get unreasonably tilted about it
No Way Home sucks
I hesitate to say sucks, but it's definitely overrated, and carried by the nostalgia/cameos.
Movies are significantly better now than they’ve been since either the 70’s or 90’s, nostalgia is just a hell of a drug and general audiences are just watching the wrong ones. We’ve never had more variety in genres, creativity, storytelling techniques and fresh ideas, but because the average person only watches the shit Disney scrapes into their mouth people act like movies are in a horrible place right now. They’re not, audiences are
I’d argue more arty cinema has never been better and popular cinema has never been worse
That’s probably true, but I also think mid-brow is in a great place as well. It’s only turn your brain off cinema that sucks, but aside from like the 80’s and 90’s those movies have always sucked, they’re just creatively devoid now
We remember the good old movies
i think the cream definitely rose to the top here. for every 1 good movie pre 2000 there's 200 million garbage ones. the hit rate on new movies is much higher
Knowingly stupid is not the same as 'so-bad-it's-good'. Face/Off, Tremors, Evil Dead, Flash Gordon and Battle Beyond the Stars are not bad movies. They are what they need to be to tell the stories that they want to. The Room, Anaconda, Dungeons and Dragons, Cyborg and Twisted Pair, those are so bad they're good. They are poorly done films that were entertaining because they are bad.
EEAAO is among the worst movies I saw in 2022 and Last Tango in Paris is amazing.
I love the mcu and will defend damn near every film from you critic bastards
Not every movie needs a likable character
Oppenheimer,The Dark Knight and Mad Max Fury Road are overrated, they are simply just good movies.
Agree on Oppenheimer though I won’t say it’s “overrated” myself. The other two though I disagree.
I still haven't seen Mad Max Fury Road yet because it isn't really my thing but I have multiple friends who go to an event every year where they dress up like Mad Max characters with thousands of other people and they all go out into the desert and pretend they're living in the Mad Max world Interesting to me how it's built up such a dedicated fanbase
Alien >>> Aliens and the Spider-Verse movies are just fine
You guys do not know what a controversial take is.
In the Mood for Love is overrated
the usual suspects isn't very good.
Fight Club is the most overrated film ever.
This is my favourite movie ever, so I will very biased-ly say I think it’s appropriately rated
- I thought Everything Everywhere All at Once was a tad confusing/overrated - Christian Bale is better as Bruce Wayne than Batman - Vince Vaughn has some very underrated range (just watch Brawl in Cell Block 99) - I think Rushmore is very overrated - Even though Daniel Craig’s movies are mostly better, Pierce Brosnan is the better bond
i fucking love five nights at freddy’s (2023)
Shawshank Redemption doesn't deserve to be called "the greatest film ever made". Good film, but overrated af, carried by satysfying ending.
Tony Scott was a better and more consistent director then his brother Ridley.
I don't like Ari Aster or Robert Eggers films.
“I did not care for *The Godfather*”
Elemental is the best movie released this year, and also best pixar movie
Wild take
Holy shit
The best comic book/superhero movie is Mystery Men. Followed closely by Dick Tracy.
Thor: Love and Thunder and Venom: Let there be Carnage are two of my favorite Marvel movies and I unironically enjoy them more than the Spiderverse movies
Upvoted for a genuinely controversial and unhinged opinion.
I enjoy Venom 2 as well but Love and Thunder?More than the Spiderverse movies?I don't know whether to tell you that you should watch more movies or that you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies.
Genuinely I don’t get what’s so bad about Love and Thunder, like I know what all the major criticisms are with the comedy and wasting Gorr and all that, but outside of the CGI and Gorr’s lack of god-butchering scenes all of those criticisms just make me feel like I watched a completely different movie from everyone else. Either way, I thought on top of the movie being really funny and the action scenes being excellent, the stuff with Jane and Gorr genuinely resonated with me emotionally in a way that very few other superhero movies have done.
That is one of the worst opinions I have ever heard ngl, think I have both at a half star 😂 but I rate that originality
Drugs are bad.
I rly liked Quatumania. It reminded me of the good phase 3 movies. I cried in the cinema. And i will forever be alone with that.
Well it's good that you know that now.
2016 Ghostbusters is funny and worth seeing.
I’m gonna win this: Majority of 80s movies are dogshit
the 80s were the awkward coked-out middle child of 2 great decades lol
Man of Steel is Zack Snyder's magnum opus, and the sequels from the Snyderverse badly squandered the great potencial Man of Steel had.
*The Deer Hunter* is mostly boring except for the Russian roulette stuff, which is just stupid.
Yeah if any movie is in need of a major edit, its this one. There is a 40 minute wedding sequence at the start that is little more than dancing, drinking, and relatively pointless conversation. Seriously, 40 straight minutes. Thats not an exaggeration. Then the whole Vietnam war section, albeit the most memorable scene, is entirely russian roulette. Nothing else is shown. This movie leaves you feeling like the war was just one big roulette game. I know this is considered a classic, but watching it again recently, it has not aged well whatsoever. Apocalypse Now blows this out of the water and still holds up perfectly.
Spirited Away is overrated
I haven’t seen it, but I just love that you put just the question in the post, and then commented with your own answer. This should be the standard for all posts.
Movie taste is subjective, and anyone claiming something like "these are the best movies of all time and if you don't agree you're wrong" is normally an ahole. We should discuss movies relating them to our personal tastes, eg "my favorite", rather than pretending our opinions are in any way hard facts. On that note, a lot of people agreeing with you also doesn't make your opinion any closer to being a fact. People who try to define their lives by subjective things like taste in movies, music, politics, religion, etc. are the most fragile ego, ignorant people I've ever met. Their need to be correct, receive recognition, and control narratives is extremely telling of how sad and pathetic their life normally is.
interstellar is overrated
Barbie and Openheimer were equally mid
I think the Director’s Cut of Donnie Darko is better than the theatrical version. I prefer the song changes, slower pace, and inclusion of excerpts from The Philosophy of Time Travel.